Isabel Healey

I'm with you two on this. 47th Year for me, and it's the best policy !!

An absolute farce ! As I've said on two other threads, trying to take on the FL, was lunacy. They are never going to "bend", and even Fry is stating that now, in so many words !!

Spot on !! Said the same on another Link !!

I don't think the guy backing Pinnacle, is anything to get concerned about! He's probably got ample funds. The problem, is, and always will be, they have bunged the "contract dispute" back to the FL, and there is more chance of me being the first person on Mars, then them "backing down", or even "rushing around" to try and sort things!!

Spot on N and F !! They must be concerned, if they won't grant a basic legal right, and INSIST on it being inserted in any contract, before they "rubber stamp" us playing in their league !! It stinks.

Not in Portugal, Bridge----- Isabel !! Very observant though !!

I would agree Mike, and I expect it starts that way:- ie " A consortium provides proof of funds". But when they get into detailed negotiations, I would imagine all the problems surface in different ways. Eg:- Creiditors, Shareholders, Bank/Insurance Companies, HMRC, The Football League, Ground complications all wanting to be "first", and not all of it entirely negotiable ??